Allen axed over £5m trial bungle

SACKED . . . Tony Allen

THE suspended head of Oldham Trading Standards has been sacked for his role in the bungled Vance Miller kitchen fraud trial.

Tony Allen appears to be the only casualty of the disastrous £5million prosecution following an independent review into what went wrong — but could yet appeal.

Oldham Council chief executive Charlie Parker said: “We can confirm that as a result of the disciplinary investigation into the issues surrounding the prosecution, a member of staff has been dismissed from the council.

“This dismissal is subject to an appeal and therefore no further comment can be made at this time.”

The council did not name Mr Allen but he was the only member of staff to be suspended.

The 38-year-old, who had been at the council for six years, responded in a statement: “I’m surprised the council has issued this statement given that the internal process is not complete.

“It’s already public knowledge that I have been cleared of all criticisms made by Judge Foster at the trial. However, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on the basis upon which the council is now proceeding as it may by subject to legal action by me.”

The £57,000-a-year trading standards boss was unable to comment further for legal reasons.

The Chronicle understands that Mr Allen fears the council is trying to dismiss him on the basis of comments he made to the media in February while suspended, rather than the court case.

The authority appointed former Birmingham City Council chief executive Stewart Dobson to conduct the review after the collapse of the trial at the beginning of the year.

The action is the culmination of the first part, comprising an investigation under the council’s disciplinary procedure. The second part is an overall review of the case with the result expected in October.

Mr Miller had been charged with conspiracy to defraud, accused of selling “high-quality” kitchens that were in fact made of chipboard and MDF.

The investigation into the controversial kitchens boss and 17-week trial was sensationally thrown out of court after Judge Jonathan Foster QC said it was “misconceived from the start” and “an abuse of the process of the court” — leaving taxpayers facing a £5million bill.

The judge was scathing in his criticism of Mr Allen, saying he could not rely on his evidence, and blasted numerous errors in the investigation.

He said his desire to close the business down coloured his thinking and led him to lose his objectivity, and that Mr Allen made misrepresentations, had no notes from important meetings and there was contradiction in his evidence.

Mr Allen was suspended by the council ahead of the review.

But in February, he hit out at the criticism, saying he was 100 per cent correct in investigating the case, it remains the right decision to prosecute and Oldham Council should have appealed the court’s decision.

He fuelled debate on who took the decision to prosecute by confirming that people above him made the call and insisted the judge’s comments against him were groundless.

He’d said: “The case clearly met the evidential and public interest tests necessary to found charges. We failed not because of the efforts of the investigating team — which were extraordinary — but because of the fact that the courts do not take allegations of consumer fraud seriously and the council prosecutors did not present the compelling case that it was.

“Any action comes with risk, but consider the risks of inaction.”

Mr Allen went further by seeking a judicial review of Judge Foster’s ruling but lost the High Court bid in May.

He complained at the hearing that he had been subjected to “public condemnation” and the consequences of the ruling were politically and financially enormous — which had led to the council using him as a scapegoat. He predicted then that it would end his career.

The Chronicle reported his comments that an ongoing investigation had cleared him of four allegations in Judge Foster’s ruling with the probe reviewing two other matters.

But Mr Justice Langstaff dismissed Mr Allen’s claim saying the court had no jurisdiction to consider it and the council had ample opportunity to appeal.

The Chronicle revealed last month that a second person had been bought in to help with the review, due to its complexity.